The March for Science began unceremoniously on January 25, with vague ambitions, a hastily designed logo, and a Facebook page inspired by a throwaway Reddit comment. Six weeks later, and it has blossomed into a huge movement. It has attracted both support and controversy, and a delugeofopinionpiecesaboutwhether it should take place at all. At least one thing is clear: It is definitely happening. On April 22, coinciding with Earth Day, large crowds will take to the streets of Washington, D.C. and over 360 other cities. Across six continents, they will, as stated, march for science.

Which means what, exactly?

“Science” isn’t a monolithic entity. The term contains multitudes. There’s empiricism itself, and the primacy of evidence in making sense of the world. There’s the scientific method—a system for gathering evidence. There are the various fields and sub-fields in which that method is used. There are the people who deploy it—scientists obviously, but also teachers, journalists, doctors, and more. Given that plurality, I wondered, what exactly are people marching for when they’re marching for science?

Celebrate what science does for people and “the many ways that science serves our communities and our world.”

Encourage the public “to value and invest in science” and “appreciate and engage with science.”

Encourage scientists to “reach out to their communities” and share their research and its impact.

Encourage scientists to “listen to communities” and consider their research from the perspective of the people they serve.

Affirm science as a “vital feature of a working democracy.”

Show science to be “first and foremost a human process” that is “conducted, applied, and supported by a diverse body of people.”

Support research “that gives us insight into the world” and “upholds the common good.”

Encourage people to “support and safeguard the scientific community.”

Call for robust federal funding “in support of research, scientific hiring, and agency application of science to management.”

Advocate for “open, inclusive, and accessible science” that is “freely available.”

Support science education that teaches people “to think critically, ask questions, and evaluate truth based on the weight of evidence.”

Encourage political leaders and policy-makers to enact evidence-based policies, and “make use of peer-reviewed evidence and scientific consensus, not personal whims and decrees.”

Oppose “policies that ignore scientific evidence” or “seek to eliminate it entirely.”

Oppose policies that “threaten to further restrict scientists’ ability to research and communicate their findings.”

Oppose an “alarming trend toward discrediting scientific consensus.”

Oppose the “mischaracterization of science as a partisan issue.”

Protect science from “manipulation by special interests.”

Hold leaders in science and in politics “accountable to the highest standards of honesty, fairness, and integrity.”

Stand up for scientists: “Speak up for them when they are silenced” and “protect them when they are threatened”.

Encourage and support a new generation of scientists “that increasingly includes historically underrepresented groups.”

You could argue about how I’ve split or lumped these, but in essence, that’s a lot of goals.

They also differ substantially in content and approach. Some feel oppositional; others, celebratory. Some use language that would not be out of place in a science fair; others use the rhetoric of protests. Many directly contradict statements that the march “is not a political protest” (from its own organizers), or that it is “not about scientists or politicians” (from its own mission page). It is clearly about all of these things.

“I think the organizers need to come up with two or three top messages that they want to really drive home,” says Maureen Boyle at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, who will be marching in DC. “And that needs to be framed around the current problem in society – the denial of evidence, and the denial of facts.” Boyle, a neuroscientist who now works in the highly contentious area of drugs policy, is keenly aware that translating scientific evidence into policy decisions is no easy task. But “we need to at least be starting at the same baseline,” she says.

If there is one issue that unites the marchers, scientist or non-scientist, Democrat or Republican, that’s it—the undermining of scientific evidence. “The discrediting of the scientific method is what we need to stand against,” says Caroline Weinberg, a writer and public health researcher who is co-chairing the march. “That’s the thing we most need to advocate for.”

Weinberg admits that this problem pre-dates Donald Trump’s presidency. “There’s been a slow building of science denialism in both the government and in society in the general,” she says. “A lot of people have been trying to fight it, but there hasn’t been a global organization of scientists standing up for it. And there should have been. There’s no reason I couldn’t have done this 5 years ago, but it reached a boiling point. And everyone had a different reason they were set off.”

She embraces that plurality, in both of the march and the marchers. “The reason why so many people have become enthusiastic is that it’s not specific to climate change or vaccinations, genetics or physics,” she says. “It’s a march for science in general, and everyone has a part of that to connect to.” Consider the march’s Facebook group, with its 838,000 members and counting. In just the last few days, people have posted that they are marching: in defense of evidence; for cures to diseases; in support of people from disadvantaged backgrounds who want to be scientists; for their students; and to protect land, air and water. “I march for fungi,” wrote one member. “Censorship of scientists is why Krypton exploded,” said another.

Of the tens of thousands of volunteers who have signed up to help with the march, most are not scientists. Beth Powder, for example, is a TV production manager from Toledo, who last took a science class at age 15. Come April 22, she’ll be marching in Ann Arbor. “In my area, I know about 20 people who are going, and the extent of our engagement with science is that we occasionally read New Scientist,” she says. “Most of the people I grew up with in San Francisco are also marching, and only three have science backgrounds.” And yet, their motives are the same as Boyle’s and Weinberg’s. “Our current administration is attacking reason in and of itself, and that poses a huge threat to our society. I want to register my discontent, and to meet other like-minded people who want to fight this disassembly of our most important institutions.”

Nicole Ferraro, a writer and editor who will march in New York, agrees. “I don’t think we’ll march and the administration is going to change its ways,” she tells me. “But the main reason to do something like this is to show up, so that people can see that there are millions gathered in the streets who say science is important.”

Critics of the march have suggested that it could have a more divisive effect, portraying science as a partisan issue and inextricably linking it to liberal, left-wing politics. But Michael Rodman, a database administrator from Oklahoma City, disagrees. As a registered Republican, he says that his political views have never come up in his discussions with fellow marchers, with whom he finds much common ground. Rodman mentors students who are being poorly served by the state’s poor science education standards, and he rankles at representatives who have tried to disprove global warming by bringing snowballs to the Senate floor. “It makes us all look like idiots,” he says. “A sense of anti-intellectualism has permeated the country. Someone needs to take a stand.”

That being said, the people I spoke to, Rodman included, didn't know of other Republican marchers. They clearly exist, but it's likely that they are in the minority. “Ordinarily, it would seem partisan for scientists to stand up against a particular administration,” adds Ferraro. “But right now, this is an urgent moment in time. There’ll be a lot less damage done by scientists gathering in the street than by an administration saying science isn’t real.”

“I think it’s a coming out party for a movement of engaged scientists and supporters.”

But it’s too simplistic to paint the White House as being “categorically anti-science,” argues Beka Economopoulos, an activist and co-founder of a mobile natural history museum. “They’re doubling down on space exploration but cutting NASA climate research. Industry science won’t be on the chopping block, but basic research will be,” she says. Likewise, the march shouldn’t be naively “pro-science”. Science is not an inherently noble pursuit: the same process that leads to medical treatments also gave us nuclear weapons and eugenics. Science is a tool, and Economopoulos is marching to ensure that it is pointed in the right direction. “The relevant question is: whose interests does science serve?” she says. “And the kinds of science that protect people–like climate science, or public health, or research into water quality—are the kinds that are most at risk.”

To her, science has always been a political issue. There’s a long lineage of prominent scientists—from Rachel Carson to Albert Einstein to Michael Mann—who have spoken out politically, and a recent study (which I covered last week) showed that such advocacy doesn’t damage a researcher’s credibility. “We need to recast scientists not as dispassionate data junkies but as people who care—who are doing this work because they want to solve problems,” Economopoulos says.

Lucky Tran, a science communicator at Columbia University, adds that “the separation of science and politics has never made sense to me,” because politics determine which groups of people get to participate in science at all. Tran himself was born in a refugee camp in Kuala Lumpur, to parents who fled the Vietnam War. He emigrated to Australia, where he began a career in science, before eventually moving to the U.S. “Policies that accommodate refugees are the reason why I got to be a scientist, and the US immigration ban is now denying a whole generation of people that opportunity,” he says. That’s partly why he’s marching. “Science is done by people, so if there’s an attack on those people, we’ll have fewer scientists and less diversity in science. That’s a problem.”

But the March for Science has drawn heavy criticism for its untenable insistence that science is apolitical, and for repeatedly posting tone-deaf messages from the various Twitter accounts. “We are absolutely apologetic for that and we feel terrible,” says Tran, who is on the steering committee. “The team isn’t a monolith and there are lot of people in it, some new to movements. We care about marching for the social good, and having inclusive language. We’re working on that right now.” Time will tell if that is enough to win back people from marginalized groups, who already feelalienated by repeated failures to address their concerns.

These same issues—muddled goals, fractured communities, disputes about intersectionality—also affected the Women’s March, and perhaps inevitably so. “Of course it’s difficult to pull together an enormous group ... who may have nothing in common other than the conviction that a country led by Trump endangers their own freedoms and the freedoms of those they love,” wrote Jia Tolentino in the New Yorker. “That conviction is nonetheless the beginning of the resistance that those planning to attend the march hope to constitute.”

That is Economopoulos’s hope for the March for Science. “I wouldn’t reduce it to a celebration of science, and I wouldn’t define it oppositionally,” she says. “I think it’s a coming out party for a movement of engaged scientists and supporters, who are more outspoken about the ways in which science can serve the public good and the need to protect such science.”

“In my lifetime, I’ve not seen scientists be so willing to come out in to the street,” adds Tran. Even top-tier scientific organizations like the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the Society for Neuroscience, and the American Geophysical Union have endorsed the march. “That’s historic; six months ago, you would never have seen that. Six months from now, will we still see those societies engaging? It’s important to make sure that that wave sustains itself and isn’t just contained to one day.”

Most Popular

Five times a day for the past three months, an app called WeCroak has been telling me I’m going to die. It does not mince words. It surprises me at unpredictable intervals, always with the same blunt message: “Don’t forget, you’re going to die.”

Sending these notices is WeCroak’s sole function. They arrive “at random times and at any moment just like death,” according to the app’s website, and are accompanied by a quote meant to encourage “contemplation, conscious breathing or meditation.” Though the quotes are not intended to induce nausea and despair, this is sometimes their effect. I’m eating lunch with my husband one afternoon when WeCroak presents a line from the Zen poet Gary Snyder: “The other side of the ‘sacred’ is the sight of your beloved in the underworld, dripping with maggots.”

The president is the common thread between the recent Republican losses in Alabama, New Jersey, and Virginia.

Roy Moore was a uniquely flawed and vulnerable candidate. But what should worry Republicans most about his loss to Democrat Doug Jones in Tuesday’s U.S. Senate race in Alabama was how closely the result tracked with the GOP’s big defeats last month in New Jersey and Virginia—not to mention how it followed the pattern of public reaction to Donald Trump’s perpetually tumultuous presidency.

Jones beat Moore with a strong turnout and a crushing lead among African Americans, a decisive advantage among younger voters, and major gains among college-educated and suburban whites, especially women. That allowed Jones to overcome big margins for Moore among the key elements of Trump’s coalition: older, blue-collar, evangelical, and nonurban white voters.

Russia's strongman president has many Americans convinced of his manipulative genius. He's really just a gambler who won big.

I. The Hack

The large, sunny room at Volgograd State University smelled like its contents: 45 college students, all but one of them male, hunched over keyboards, whispering and quietly clacking away among empty cans of Juicy energy drink. “It looks like they’re just picking at their screens, but the battle is intense,” Victor Minin said as we sat watching them.

Clustered in seven teams from universities across Russia, they were almost halfway into an eight-hour hacking competition, trying to solve forensic problems that ranged from identifying a computer virus’s origins to finding secret messages embedded in images. Minin was there to oversee the competition, called Capture the Flag, which had been put on by his organization, the Association of Chief Information Security Officers, or ARSIB in Russian. ARSIB runs Capture the Flag competitions at schools all over Russia, as well as massive, multiday hackathons in which one team defends its server as another team attacks it. In April, hundreds of young hackers participated in one of them.

Brushing aside attacks from Democrats, GOP negotiators agree on a late change in the tax bill that would reduce the top individual income rate even more than originally planned.

For weeks, Republicans have brushed aside the critique—brought by Democrats and backed up by congressional scorekeepers and independent analysts—that their tax plan is a bigger boon to the rich than a gift to the middle class.

On Wednesday, GOP lawmakers demonstrated their confidence as clearly as they could, by giving a deeper tax cut to the nation’s top earners.

A tentative agreement struck by House and Senate negotiators would reduce the highest marginal tax rate to 37 percent from 39.6 percent, in what appears to be the most significant change to the bills passed by each chamber in the last month. The proposal final tax bill would also reduce the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 21 percent, rather than the 20 percent called for in the initial House and Senate proposals, according to a Republican aide privy to the private talks.

If Democratic candidate Doug Jones had lost to GOP candidate Roy Moore, weakened as he was by a sea of allegations of sexual assault and harassment, then some of the blame would have seemed likely to be placed on black turnout.

But Jones won, according to the Associated Press, and that script has been flipped on its head. Election Day defied the narrative and challenged traditional thinking about racial turnout in off-year and special elections. Precincts in the state’s Black Belt, the swathe of dark, fertile soil where the African American population is concentrated, long lines were reported throughout the day, and as the night waned and red counties dominated by rural white voters continued to report disappointing results for Moore, votes surged in from urban areas and the Black Belt. By all accounts, black turnout exceeded expectations, perhaps even passing previous off-year results. Energy was not a problem.

There’s a fiction at the heart of the debate over entitlements: The carefully cultivated impression that beneficiaries are simply receiving back their “own” money.

One day in 1984, Kurt Vonnegut called.

I was ditching my law school classes to work on the presidential campaign of Walter Mondale, the Democratic candidate against Ronald Reagan, when one of those formerly-ubiquitous pink telephone messages was delivered to me saying that Vonnegut had called, asking to speak to one of Mondale’s speechwriters.

All sorts of people called to talk to the speechwriters with all sorts of whacky suggestions; this certainly had to be the most interesting. I stared at the 212 phone number on the pink slip, picked up a phone, and dialed.

A voice, so gravelly and deep that it seemed to lie at the outer edge of the human auditory range, rasped, “Hello.” I introduced myself. There was a short pause, as if Vonnegut were fixing his gaze on me from the other end of the line, then he spoke.

So many people watch porn online that the industry’s carbon footprint might be worse now that it was in the days of DVDs and magazines.

Online streaming is a win for the environment. Streaming music eliminates all that physical material—CDs, jewel cases, cellophane, shipping boxes, fuel—and can reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by 40 percent or more. Video streaming is still being studied, but the carbon footprint should similarly be much lower than that of DVDs.

Scientists who analyze the environmental impact of the internet tout the benefits of this “dematerialization,” observing that energy use and carbon-dioxide emissions will drop as media increasingly can be delivered over the internet. But this theory might have a major exception: porn.

Since the turn of the century, the pornography industry has experienced two intense hikes in popularity. In the early 2000s, broadband enabled higher download speeds. Then, in 2008, the advent of so-called tube sites allowed users to watch clips for free, like people watch videos on YouTube. Adam Grayson, the chief financial officer of the adult company Evil Angel, calls the latter hike “the great mushroom-cloud porn explosion of 2008.”

In The Emotional Life of the Toddler, the child-psychology and psychotherapy expert Alicia F. Lieberman details the dramatic triumphs and tribulations of kids ages 1 to 3. Some of her anecdotes make the most commonplace of experiences feel like they should be backed by a cinematic instrumental track. Take Lieberman’s example of what a toddler feels while walking across the living room:

When Johnny can walk from one end of the living room to the other without falling even once, he feels invincible. When his older brother intercepts him and pushes him to the floor, he feels he has collapsed in shame and wants to bite his attacker (if only he could catch up with him!) When Johnny’s father rescues him, scolds the brother, and helps Johnny on his way, hope and triumph rise up again in Johnny’s heart; everything he wants seems within reach. When the exhaustion overwhelms him a few minutes later, he worries that he will never again be able to go that far and bursts into tears.

Will the vice president—and the religious right—be rewarded for their embrace of Donald Trump?

No man can serve two masters, the Bible teaches, but Mike Pence is giving it his all. It’s a sweltering September afternoon in Anderson, Indiana, and the vice president has returned to his home state to deliver the Good News of the Republicans’ recently unveiled tax plan. The visit is a big deal for Anderson, a fading manufacturing hub about 20 miles outside Muncie that hasn’t hosted a sitting president or vice president in 65 years—a fact noted by several warm-up speakers. To mark this historic civic occasion, the cavernous factory where the event is being held has been transformed. Idle machinery has been shoved to the perimeter to make room for risers and cameras and a gargantuan American flag, which—along with bleachers full of constituents carefully selected for their ethnic diversity and ability to stay awake during speeches about tax policy—will serve as the TV-ready backdrop for Pence’s remarks.

More comfortable online than out partying, post-Millennials are safer, physically, than adolescents have ever been. But they’re on the brink of a mental-health crisis.

One day last summer, around noon, I called Athena, a 13-year-old who lives in Houston, Texas. She answered her phone—she’s had an iPhone since she was 11—sounding as if she’d just woken up. We chatted about her favorite songs and TV shows, and I asked her what she likes to do with her friends. “We go to the mall,” she said. “Do your parents drop you off?,” I asked, recalling my own middle-school days, in the 1980s, when I’d enjoy a few parent-free hours shopping with my friends. “No—I go with my family,” she replied. “We’ll go with my mom and brothers and walk a little behind them. I just have to tell my mom where we’re going. I have to check in every hour or every 30 minutes.”

Those mall trips are infrequent—about once a month. More often, Athena and her friends spend time together on their phones, unchaperoned. Unlike the teens of my generation, who might have spent an evening tying up the family landline with gossip, they talk on Snapchat, the smartphone app that allows users to send pictures and videos that quickly disappear. They make sure to keep up their Snapstreaks, which show how many days in a row they have Snapchatted with each other. Sometimes they save screenshots of particularly ridiculous pictures of friends. “It’s good blackmail,” Athena said. (Because she’s a minor, I’m not using her real name.) She told me she’d spent most of the summer hanging out alone in her room with her phone. That’s just the way her generation is, she said. “We didn’t have a choice to know any life without iPads or iPhones. I think we like our phones more than we like actual people.”